Judge rules
Phosphate reduction plan partly out of action
The Phosphate Reduction Regulation 2017 does not apply to a certain group of dairy farmers. The court in The Hague said this on Thursday 4 May. This is because these dairy farmers are financially disadvantaged.
The scheme has been suspended for the 5 dairy farmers (1 organic, 1 land-based and 3 conventional farmers) who initiated summary proceedings against the Phosphate Reduction Regulation 2017. The judge ruled that the Scheme was a disproportionate burden on the plaintiffs. "He was not foreseeable and does not offer any compensation," the judge ruled. The scheme is therefore non-binding.
The first group to win are the organic farmers, because they do not contribute to the problem. The second group is those who made irreversible investments in land or stables before 2 July 2015. According to the judge, the only beef cattle company that also took part no longer had any interests (because of the the change of 1 May).
Not contributing to problem
Precisely because of the switch to an organic dairy farm, and the associated costs, the court finds the Regulation disproportionate. This is because the Regulation aims to provide a solution to a problem in which organic farmers have no interest and to which they do not contribute. Organic dairy farming is therefore excluded from the problem by the court.
Another group are those who invested. Marieke Toonders, van Linssen Advocaten responds: 'The plaintiffs invested in land.' This happened after politicians indicated that land was a requirement for the further development of the company. This was later overtaken by the introduction of phosphate rights on 2 July 2015, followed by a Phosphate Reduction Regulation 2017. Toonders: 'Under the latter regulation, the removal of cows must take place.' This concerns investments made before July 2, 2015, in accordance with the legislation that was active on January 1, 2015.
disproportionate burden
Attorney-at-law Peter Goumans, Hekkelman Advocaten, adds further. 'The Scheme is being suspended because it imposes a disproportionate burden on the milk-supplying companies (particularly because of the investments made). For the organic company concerned and in general for organic companies, legal consideration 4.19 is highly relevant. Precisely because of the switch to an organic dairy farm and the associated costs, the preliminary relief judge finds the Regulation disproportionate. This is because the Regulation aims to provide a solution for a problem in which organic farmers have no interest and for a problem to which they do not contribute. Organic dairy farming is therefore excluded from the problem by the judge.'
What does the pronunciation mean?
Peter Goumans responds: 'The question now is what the scope of the ruling is. The ruling and the ineffectiveness apply to the claimants. Dairy farms that are in similar circumstances must write to the State Secretary invoking the judgment of the summary proceedings. Another option is to litigate in the event of a rejection of a request to increase the reference number due to special circumstances (pressure case), or to do the same when a levy is imposed.'
It's Van Dam's turn
'Now it is up to Van Dam to do something', says Toonders. She indicates that the ruling gives many dairy farmers a reason to follow the example of the first 5. Goumans mainly wants to know whether the summary proceedings are a reason for the State Secretary to withdraw the scheme.
Goumans visiting
Friday 5 May Peter Goumans will visit the studio of Boerenbusiness† If you have any pressing questions, ask them below this article. Who knows, we may address your question in the interview. Do not hesitate to ask questions about the young stock and related matters.
Herman van den Pol
© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.